Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36530416›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Treatment outcome of class II malocclusion therapy including extraction of maxillary first molars: a cephalometric comparison between normodivergent and hyperdivergent facial types.

Johan Willem Booij, Marta Fontana, Marco Serafin, Rosamaria Fastuca, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman, Alberto Caprioglio

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Johan Willem BooijGorinchem, The Netherlands.
Marta FontanaVarese, Italy.
Marco SerafinDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4680-0989
Rosamaria FastucaVarese, Italy.
Anne Marie Kuijpers-JagtmanFaculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0001-8172-0090
Alberto CaprioglioDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITFujifilm (Netherlands) · NLUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The dentoalveolar component of a Class II division 1 malocclusion can be orthodontically treated either with extractions or by distalization of the molars. This study aimed to compare skeletal, dentoalveolar and profile changes in normodivergent and hyperdivergent Class II Division I growing patients orthodontically treated with fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extraction. Methods: Sixty-four patients treated orthodontically with full fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extractions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a normodivergent group (Group N; 30° ≤ SN^GoGn < 36°) consisting of 38 patients (17M, 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) and a hyperdivergent (Group H; SN^GoGn ≥ 36°) including 26 patients (12M, 14F; mean age 13.7 ± 1.1 years). Lateral cephalograms were available before (T0) and after treatment (T1) and cephalometric changes were calculated for 10 linear and 13 angular variables. The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a normal distribution of data, hence parametric tests were employed. The Student t-test was used to compare groups at baseline. The paired t-test was used to analyze intragroup changes between timepoints, and the Student t-test for intergroup comparisons. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: The Class II division 1 malocclusion was successfully corrected, and the facial profile improved both in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. Divergency increased by 0.76 ± 1.99° in Group N ( Discussion: The effect of orthodontic treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion including extraction of the maxillary first molars in growing patients can be considered clinically equivalent in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. For this reason, this orthodontic treatment can be considered a viable option in the armamentarium of the Class II Division I therapy for both facial types.

Indexed as

Malocclusion, Angle Class IIAdolescentCephalometryChildHumansMolarRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCephalometric analysisClass II malocclusionHyperdivergencyMaxillary first molar extractionNormodivergency

Identifiers

PMID36530416
PMCPMC9753754
OpenAlexW4312066006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.